View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Extreme EventsCost-Effectiveness Analysis
Scott MatthewsCourses: 12-706 / 19-702
2
Admin
HW 4 Solutions Out (some late)Project 2 Coming out soon.
Due Friday Nov 17th
3
Extreme Events
So-called low-probability, high-consequence events Natural disasters (eg Hurricanes) Catastrophic infrastructure failure
Modeling them requires just doing good sensitivity analysis On risk tolerance / utility
“how risk averse do you need to be for it to matter?” On expected losses (consequences)
“how much would you have to lose for it to matter?”
4
Relevant Thoughts
As you (the decision maker) becomes more risk averse, you tend to worry ONLY about the worst case
Example: using exponential utility (similar to Deal or No Deal) Recall definition of R parameter in function Equally willing to risk winning R or losing R/2 For individuals, generally R ~ $1000s Recall goal is to maximize CE
5
Exponential Utility Function u(x)=1-exp(-x/R)
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
$- $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $9,000,000 $12,000,000
$ amount
Utility
R=1,000,000 R=2,000,000 R=3,000,000
6
Exponential Utility Function u(x)=1-exp(-x/R)
(2.00)
(1.50)
(1.00)
(0.50)
-
0.50
1.00
$(4) $(1) $2 $5 $8 $11 $14 $17 $20Millions
$ amount
Utility
R=1,000,000 R=2,000,000 R=3,000,000
7
8
Example: Infrastructure Failure
Probability (P) of happening: About 0.5%
Damage (D) if occurs - $100 millionTypical EMV = P*D = $1000sThis obviously is not the right method
Saw similar result in project 1
9
Utility
Recall: eliciting and using individual utility functions to make decisions
Is there a similar concept to help us make decisions at the social level?
10
Specifics on Saving Lives
Cost-Utility Analysis Quantity and quality of lives important
Just like discounting, lives are not equal Back to the developing/developed example
But also: YEARS are not equal Young lives “more important” than old Cutting short a year of life for us vs Cutting short a year of life for 85-year-old Often look at ‘life years’ rather than ‘lives’
saved.. These values also get discounted
11
Contingent Valuation
Analysis method used when there is no observable market Example: water quality at national parks Asks questions to population Is a last resort option! Called ‘contingent’ since you never
really pay Valuing use non-controversial Valuing ‘non-use’ VERY controversial
12
Example
Asked for valuations of a certain good Then estimate overall WTP for it -
similar to travel time demand functions Extrapolated to entire population Assumes random sample!
13
Criticisms of CV
Extrapolation of ‘all CV studies’ to average consumer would take over their budget
Normal statistical problems (sampling, non-response, biases, etc.)
Surveying opinions is impreciseProblems tend to be complicated
14
WTP versus WTA
Economics implies that WTP should be equal to ‘willingness to accept’ loss
Turns out people want MUCH MORE in compensation for losing something
WTA is factor of 4-15 higher than WTP! Also see discrepancy shrink with
experience WTP formats should be used in CVs Only can compare amongst individuals
15
Measuring Lives Saved
Life years (prevented fatalities) not equal Qualitative and quantitative issue Need to consider tradeoffs
Simple example Status quo: no newborns survive a condition Alt. A: 5 live, but with permanent disability Alt. B: 2 live, but with low levels of disability
Which option (SQ, A, B) is preferable?Assume Y increasing, H increasing
Equal costs, no relevant uncertainty
16
Simple Example
Measure of TotalAdditional Years
HealthStatus
Y1 Y2 Y3
H1 Y1H1SQ Y2H1 Y3H1
H2 Y1H2 Y2H2 Y3H2B
H3 Y1H3 Y2H3A Y3H3
17
The Quality/Quantity Game
Assume “preference” for Increased number of years lived Increased level of health Would your preferences be the same?
If so, SQ “dominated” by both A and B Note different horizontal/vertical preference But which of A or B is better? We all understand difference in years Need an index of health status
18
Health Status Index
Death
0
SeverelyDisabled
MinimallyDisabled
HealthModeratelyDisabled
0.15 0.47 0.92 1
Measures utility, derived from expertsBut this says nothing about tradeoff!
Can perform tradeoff survey Value of “shorter Y, higher H” vs. opposite
19
Methods
Health Rating method (see above)Time tradeoff methodStandard gamble methodDiscounting life years
Can/should we discount them? Unlike cash values, we can’t make a
decision to trade 1 year today for 10 yrs from now
20
Cost-Effectiveness TestingGenerally, use when:
Considering externality effects or damagesCould be environmental, safety, etc.
Benefits able to be reduced to one dimension Alternatives give same result - e.g. ‘reduced x’ Benefit-Cost Analysis otherwise
difficult/impossible
Instead of finding NB, find “cheapest” Want greatest bang for the buck
Find cost “per unit benefit” (e.g. lives saved) Allows us to NOT include ‘social costs’
21
Why CEA instead of CBA?
Similar to comments on MCDM Constraints may limit ability to performMonetizing maybe difficult or
controversial Easy to find lives saved, hard to judge
valueMonetizing can’t capture total social value or
distorts its value
22
The CEA ratiosCE = C/E
Equals cost “per unit of effectiveness” e.g. $ per lives saved, tons CO2 reduced Want to minimize CE (cheapest is best)
EC = E/C Effectiveness per unit cost e.g. Lives saved per dollar Want to maximize EC
No practical difference between 2 ratios
23
An Obvious Example
AlternativesValuesA B C
Cost $10 M $10 M $10 M# LivesSaved
5 10 15
CEratio
$2 M $1 M $0.67M
ECratio
0.5life
1 life 1.5lives
24
Another Obvious One
AlternativesValuesA B C
Cost $5 M $10 M $15 M# Lives Saved 10 10 10CE ratio($M/life)
$0.5 $1 $1.5
EC ratio(life/$M)
2 1 0.66
25
Comments on Obvious Examples
Each had 2 dominated alternativesCould easily identify best CE/EC
optionAlso had fixed scale
Fixed cost scale in first Fixed effectiveness in second
26
Interesting Example
AlternativesA B
Cost $1 M $100 M# LivesSaved
4 200
CE ratio $250k $500kEC ratio 4 lives 2 lives
27
Lessons Learned
Ratios still tend to hide results Do not take into account scale issues CBA might have shown Option B to be better (more lives
saved) Tend to only consider budgetary costs CEA used with constraints? Minimize C s.t. E > E*
Min. effectiveness level (prev slide) Find least costly way to achieve it
Minimize CE s.t. E > E* Generally -> higher levels of C and E!
Can have similar rules to constrain cost
28
Sample Applications
Cost-effectiveness of: New drug/medical therapies* very
popular Pollution prevention Safety regulations
29
Definitions
Overall cost-effectiveness is the ratio of the annualized cost to the quantity of effectiveness benefit.
Incremental cost-effectiveness is the difference in costs divided by the difference in effectiveness that results from comparing one option to another, or to a benchmark measure.
30
31
Incremental CE
To find incremental cost-effectiveness : Sort alternatives by ‘increasing effectiveness’ TAC = total annualized cost of compliance PE = effectiveness (e.g. benefit measure) CE = (TACk – TACk-1) / ( PEk – PEk-1) CE = incremental cost-effectiveness of Option k Use zero values (if applicable) for base case
32
Incremental CE Example
Inc CE here only relevant within control categories (metals v. oils v. org’s) ** Negative CE means option has more removals at lower cost Source: US EPA Office of Water EPA 821-R-98-018, “Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry”
Control Option Name Costs Removals Cost- Incremental(pounds) Effectiveness CE
Metals 2 $8,853,173 369,112 $24 $24Metals 4 $1,843,303 372,040 $5 -$2394.08**Metals 3 $9,179,935 379,571 $24 $974Oils 8 $313,523 13,943 $22 $22Oils 9 $313,523 14,811 $21 $0Organics 4 $150,694 —Organics 3 $275,074 27,055 $10 $10
33
Definitions (2)
Marginal cost-effectiveness refers to the change in costs and benefits from a one-unit expansion or contraction of service from a particular intervention (e.g. an extra pound of emissions, an extra fatality avoided).
34
Why is CEA so relevant for public policy analysis?
Limited resources!Opportunity cost of public spending
i.e. if we spend $100 M with agency A, its $100 M we cannot spend elsewhere
There is no federal rule saying ‘each million dollars spent must save x lives’
35
Gray Areas
How to measure cost-effectiveness when there is a single project cost but multiple effectiveness categories E.g. fatalities and injuries, CO2 and SO2
Alternatives: Keep same cost, divide by each benefit
Overstates costs for each Keep same cost, divide by ‘sum of benefits’ Allocate cost, divide by each benefit separately Weight the costs and/or benefits
36
Another CEA Example
Automated defribillators in community http://www.early-defib.org/03_06_09.ht
ml What would costs be? What is effectiveness?